Daily news and analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is World Today.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney visits China to boost cooperation.
China's foreign trade is up 3.8% in 2025 with more diverse markets.
And German Defense Minister meets EU Security Chief calls Greenland a shared NATO responsibility amid unprecedented alliance rift.
Welcome to Road Today, a news program with a different perspective.
I'm Gaena in Beijing.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching Road Today.
Our top story.
Canada says Prime Minister Mark Carney's visit to China this week aims to boost cooperation in trade energy, agriculture and international security.
Carney is paying an official visit to China from Wednesday to Saturday.
Nina Daveris reports from Toronto.
Mark Carney's visit to Beijing this week marks the first trip by a Canadian Prime Minister to China in almost a decade.
Canada's government has said it wants to move its economy from reliance to resilience, building stronger at home, doubling their non-US exports and attracting new investment.
However, the relations between Canada and China have at times been tense.
Most recently, the two countries have thrown tariffs on each other's exports.
In 2024, Canada increased import taxes on Chinese electric vehicles, steel and aluminum.
China responded by hitting Canadian agricultural products with new tariffs, including canola.
Things took a more positive turn at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders Meeting.
Carney met with President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the gathering and accepted his invitation for a state visit.
These upcoming talks between the two leaders will certainly be important.
China is Canada's second largest trading partner after the United States.
In 2024, bilateral trade between China and Canada reached $118.7 billion.
Canada and China also have a significant history of people-to-people connections.
More than 18 million Canadians are of Chinese descent, and Mandarin is the fourth most spoken language in Canada, after English, French and Spanish.
That was Nina Devery's reporting.
So, for this and more, let's have Professor Qu Bo, Director of the Institute of International Relations at China Foreign Affairs University.
Thanks for joining us, Professor.
It's my pleasure.
Professor, the last time a Canadian Prime Minister visited China was in 2017, and the world looks very different today.
Against the changes in the global political landscape over almost the past decade, how would you describe the state of China-Canada relations?
Yes, I agree.
A lot of changes have happened almost in the last decade.
I think the changes really heavily influenced the bilateral relations between China and Canada.
And I think the core issue still lies in the changes of US strategy or shifts of US-Canadian relations.
In 2018, Canada followed the the United States lead and detain the senior executive of Huawei company, Meng Wanzhou, as requested by US.
So since then, we can look at China and Canada relations have been on a continuous downward trend.
So, for example, under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, high-level engagement between China and Canada was effectively frozen and even like in 2014 and there are some Detroit frictions continue.
Just like mentioned, Canada imposed a hundred percent tariff on Chinese made electric vehicles and trying to respond with tariff on Canadians agriculture products.
So I think A lot of changes happened in the last decade and the key is the US strategy of United States and Canada relations change.
That also influenced China and Canada relations.
Earlier you mentioned former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
It has been more than three years since President Xi told Trudeau to create the conditions first for constructive cooperation during Trudeau's awkward approach to President Xi at the 2022 G20 summit.
What has Canada changed recently that's helped move the relationship in a more positive direction?
So I think the key is about the mindset how they look at China, especially how the They understand the China's rising
So we can see, during Prime Minister Trudeau's administration, they follow the United States and they distrust China.
So that is why they detain Meng Wanzhou, right?
And even during the G20 summit presidency, told then Prime Minister Trudeau Canada needed to create the new condition first for constructive cooperation.
But you know, by the end of 2022, the Canada released their first Indo-Pacific strategy, which says China is an increasingly disruptive global power which has interests and values that increasingly depart from ours.
And then the Canada calls for higher ties with other nations that better respect international law.
So I think that is why the presidency told Canada they need to create a new condition first.
So I think last year when the presidency met Prime Minister Kanye in Seoul.
They meet on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in South Korea.
And that is the first official meeting between the two heads of government since 2017.
And I think the Prime Minister Connie calls the meeting turning point in Canada-China relation and talks about the importance of forging new partnership as the US upends global trade.
So I think this is the change.
This is the conditions first for constructive cooperation.
So you have to change your mindset first.
Then from Canadians' perspective.
Under Carney's administration, Canada has described its policy shift as moving from reliance to resilience.
What underlying drivers and strategic anxieties are shaping this thinking?
So I think definitely the United States, especially is Donald Trump, right?
We know, after Donald Trump came into power last year, the bilateral relations between Canada and the United States had changed very much.
Donald Trump frequently called for Canada to become the 51st state in the early months of his second term, provoking disbelief and anger among Canadians and also helping to propel Mark Carney to victory in Canadian's federal election last April.
We know that Canada has now considered the United States as a military threat since the mid-19th century.
But these tensions appear, the tensions appear to be settled until now.
So recently, this early this year, the United States capture of President Maduro, coupled with President Donald Trump's broad assertion of US dominance across the Western hemisphere, have unsettled the long-held assumption that about Canada's security in North America.
And on the other hand, we know the decades-long process of our closure economic relation between the Canadian and United States economies is now over.
This is what the prime minister, Connie, pronounced in last October.
So after that the the the, the Canadian criticizing.
There there's a Canadian advertised criticizing tariff.
So trauma nuns, and he has Determinated tree talks with Canada.
So still highlighting the I'm free and a pretty ability over dogging relations, and So I think this is why the Canada call is trying to move from reliance to resilience.
So in the past politically, in security regards economically, the Canada heavily relies on the United States.
So now they try to pursue their own resilience and try to diversify, especially their trade partners.
Professor, when it comes to this visit, where do you see room for renewed or new cooperation between China and Canada?
And what topics do you think will be at the top of the list for both sides?
So I think definitely the first is about the trade, energy cooperation and, like agriculture, production of vehicles.
So we know the complementarity between China and Canada in fields such as new energy, such as auto parts and mineral resources is sufficient to propel bilateral trade to a higher level.
And on the other hand, both sides also can cooperate like the climate change on global governance.
And especially, I have to say, in the past, just like the previous mention in the past, China and Canada.
We have very deep people-to-people relations.
So I think the trade may be the top priority and the two sides maybe discuss how to reduce the constraints and tariffs, the current tariffs and to open the trade more broadly.
Professor, one last question.
At a time when unilateralism and protectionism are on the rise and US allies are facing increasing pressure from Washington's trade and security policies, what kind of message might Canada's push to improve ties with China send to other American allies?
Sure.
I think this is pretty true.
For all the American allies they currently in a.
So, on one hand, they still heavily rely on the United States.
And the United States, as one of the great powers, still can abuse using its power.
So the American allies, they have to balance.
On one hand, they have to respond to the abuse of power by the United States.
And, on the other hand, they have to pursue their own strategic autonomy and to protect their own national interests.
They have to achieve this balance.
So if we look at Canada, it's a similar situation.
And I think this time, Prime Minister Kanye's visit maybe could play as an example, right?
China and Canada, different countries, one of the largest developing country, the other is middle power.
But these two countries we can cooperate on a multilateralism on the free trade and that will set examples for other American allies and encourage them to pursue much more strategic autonomy.
Thanks, Professor, for those insightful analysis.
That was Professor Qu Bo, Director of the Institute of International Relations at China Foreign Affairs University.
China's foreign trade has expanded 3.8% last year.
Total imports and exports reached over 45 trillion yuan, or roughly 65 trillion US dollars, marking the ninth consecutive year of growth.
Exports rose 61, while imports edged up 05, maintaining China as the world's second-largest import market for the 17th year.
Trade ties also became broader and more diversified.
China traded with more than 240 countries and regions, and the Belt and Road partners accounted for over half of the total trade.
So for more on this, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Dr Zhou Mi, a senior research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation.
Dr. Zhou Mi, so China's foreign trade has grown by 3.8% in the year 2025.
Exports expanded 6.1%, while imports grew by 0.5%.
So what do you think are the main factors driving this stable growth and how sustainable is this trend?
Well, we know that in the year of 2025, the world is facing a lot of change, a lot of changes coming from United States practices about the paratechnism.
They ended so many tariffs on the import from other countries.
So at the same time, they forced other countries to do something to change their practices.
So in this time, I think that China's performance on the global trade is very difficult.
And I would say that, no matter from the export to the import, China has really performed so well compared with many other countries, economies in the world.
So when we're talking about the export, China's exports are increasing about more than six percent.
I think that is because that many countries are really wanting to have a more stable supply from other countries.
And China is definitely one of the most the best choices and for the import.
Although the global the commodity markets are facing many challenges, China still increased the import from many other countries and we increased the import from the African countries and also other countries about the agricultural products and different products.
So we ended more quantities of import and that's ended with a 05 positive increase of the imports.
Well, as you mentioned, despite the external uncertainties, China's exports of high-tech and high-end manufacturing products saw strong growth, and the exports of high-tech products climbed 13 year-on-year.
So what does this tell us about the changing structure of China's exports?
So in the previous several years, China's putting many emphasis on the support of the innovation.
And I think that innovation abilities of a China's manufacturing are really being allowed.
In the previous several years,
We can see that China's product on the so-called new trails, including the lithium and other products, are really beneficiary.
You know the market.
So many other countries really want to improve their structure.
They want to be part of this new economy so they can import more things from China.
And I think that is also the reason why we can see that the new three trails and also the wind turbines are really increased a lot for the last year, for almost 30 and almost 50 respectively.
And what role does AI play in China's foreign trade, do you think?
AI is a universal technology.
It's not only focused on certain products that are really spread widely.
I think that there are maybe two areas.
The first one is that AI is applied in a certain kind of traditional manufacturing to let the companies to produce the product in the better way and more efficiently.
I think, in this regard, we can supply the world with much more affordable products and with better quality.
While the second is that the AI are widely used in certain uh categories, like for the robots, like for certain kind of the home appliances, and these products are really get a high improve about its abilities to serve the customers, and i think that is really helpful for china's export with the intermediate products, and ai are also embedded in those products, which can make these importers have a better abilities to to build a beta with China's AI-based intermediate products.
And China's trade with ASEAN grew by 8% and trade with Latin America rose by 6.5%.
Trade with Africa jumped by 18%.
And ASEAN has remained China's largest trading partner.
So what role do you think ASEAN plays in China's foreign trade relations?
Well, ASEAN is our neighbor and we are really working very closely with each other.
So last year we finished our free trade agreement negotiation on the version 3.0.
I think it's a kind of example to show the world that what we are going to do is not just trying to strengthen our traditional connections, but trying to create some new spaces for cooperation, including the digital economy and also the green economy.
So the trade between China and ASEAN are really are beneficiary for both sides.
We are trying to improve the resilience about the supply chains.
And, in this regard, many ASEAN companies just invest here in China and they can learn more from China's market and also many Chinese companies investing in ASEAN countries.
So the bilateral trade and investment together the beneficiary both sides and include increase the bilateral trade between our two countries.
So these trades are really beneficiary for both sides and also the rest of the world, because we are producing many of the very necessary products for the people to use in the world.
And how do you evaluate the situation of China-US trade in the year 2025?
What factors determine, you know, the trade between the two countries?
Well, China and the United States, you know, for both sides we are the number maybe not the number one, but one of the top trading partners for each other.
So, according to the data, in the year of 2025, the trade between China and the United States accounted for almost 10 of China's international trade, and also almost 8 for the United States.
So for both sides, they are still very, very important.
I think that we can count on the situation to improve in this year because of the agreement or consensus reached by these two leaders met in Foshan last year and I think that the different maybe situations are really there, but we have to look forward.
We have to look at about the complementary advantages of both sides and trying to improve the cooperation areas and trying to strengthen the cooperation basis.
So the trade between these two countries are still very important.
I mean, maybe if you are looking at the data it's not as good as the year before, but they are still there.
And if the situation is getting better, the policies are getting stable, I would say the market will respond because they really have more desire to do the trade with each other.
And the EU remains one of China's top trading partners.
How do you assess the trade relations between China and the EU?
China and the EU are really important partners in the world.
We are so diversified in different areas.
So you can find that last year, China has put it one of our emphasize to improve the import from EU.
Well, at the same time, I think the EU is really depending on the import from China, especially for the new energy vehicles.
But I have to say that there are still some disputes and frictions between these two trading partners.
So, if we are going to looking forward, I think that we do have the reasons to do something to deal with these uncertainties and give the enterprises more hope and more expectations and confidence to do business with each other.
And you mentioned the electric vehicles.
Actually, China and the EU have recently made significant progress in talks over the European Union's anti-subsidy probe into Chinese electric vehicles.
China says this progress shows differences can be worked through dialogue under WTO rules.
So what does this outcome through price undertakings mechanism tell us about the effectiveness of consultation and dialogue compared with unilateral trade measures?
Well, it's true that the members of WTO should try to address these differences or disputes according to the commitments in WTO.
I think that China and the EU, we are both very firm supporters of the global governance.
About the WTO.
So we can try to deal with the problem based on the consultation.
So the example that we can find from the new energy vehicles that, based on this discussion and the consultation, I think it's possible for the two members of WTO to deal with their differences and they can reach some consensus.
And I think that is the kind of solution with the least cost.
If we are going to continue with the trade.
I think that no countries or members of WTO can just avoid the frictions or some of the conflicts.
But we should believe that the conflicts are not so difficult if we are able to just sit down and use the mechanism of WTO to deal with that.
So it's really giving us more confidence that we can do more to improve the transparency and also the trust between the important WTO members.
And China's Commerce Ministry also says this helps maintain the stability of auto industry and green supply chains globally.
So how important is this for the EU's own energy transition and the EU consumers?
EU really want to fulfill its commitment for the climate change.
They want to transfer from the fossil fuels to the new energy vehicles or way of living.
I think that the NEVs is really one important way for them to fulfill their commitments.
So the import of China's autos are really helping the EU consumers to fulfill their commitments, while at the same time they will give more pressures or opportunities for the EU competitors of the automakers.
They can cooperate together.
They can not just doing the final products to compete with each other.
They can also cooperate on the supply chains.
Many Chinese companies are really doing something to invest in EU, like the batteries or some other parts, the auto parts of the EU.
I believe that, based on their, That was Dr Zhou Mi, a senior research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, speaking with Zhao Yang.
More to come.
South Korean President Lee Jae-myung wraps up his two-day visit to Japan and urges closer trilateral ties with Japan and China.
This is Road Today.
We'll be back after a short break.
South Korean President Lee Jae-myung has highlighted the need for South Korea, China and Japan to seek common ground, boost close communication and deepen cooperation.
He made the remarks when meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takeuchi in Nara.
The two-day trip comes after at least a four-day visit to China last week.
So for more on this, Xue Wen spoke with Yang Xiyu, research fellow at China Institute of international studies.
Dr. Yang, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung's visit to Japan comes right after his trip to China.
Some suggest that this reflects Seoul's balanced and pragmatic approach to diplomacy in managing the China-South Korea-Japan relations.
What's your take on this?
Would you make up Lee's choice to visit China first, Japan second in his travels?
I think the sequencing of the trip first and second doesn't mean substantive things.
The substantive meaning is he is trying to rebuild a balancing relationship, not only between South Korea-China, South Korea-Japan, but also, in the bigger ground balancing relationship between South Korea-US, South Korea-China and, as a whole, China and uh, the three allied states.
Therefore, we can say this visit is one of his efforts to rebuild a more balancing, more sophisticated relation, benefited for South Korea's sustainable, friendly external environment, for his country's interests.
During their bilateral meeting, it seemed that the two leaders used different rhetoric when discussing their country's relations.
For instance, South Korean President Lee said, although the two countries experienced a painful period in the past, over 60 years have passed since the normalization of diplomatic relations, marking a full cycle.
While Japanese Prime Minister Takeuchi said she hopes to make this year, starting with President Lee's visit, one in which Japan-South Korea relations develop to new heights.
What's your interpretation of their respective remarks?
Is there potential for the two countries' relations to reach a new height?
Well, I think you're touching on very key points between South Korea and Japan on the same controversial issue, say the history of Japanese invasion, history of Japanese colonial rules on the Korean Peninsula.
The sophisticated difference tones between the two leaders' remarks really reflects the different focus on dealing with the rhetorical issue.
For South Korean president's remarks, that indirectly means the new highs rely on solution to the focusing issue of the history, while the Japanese leader indirectly but clearly indicated the new highs rely on the two countries to build new relationship towards future rather than pay attention to the history.
That is why the two leaders, on the focusing point about history, use totally different words and different tones.
Therefore, I think on one hand, the two sides remain have a deep difference on the history.
That is the obstacle for the so-called new height of the bilateral relationship.
But on the other hand, just because the two leaders carefully use the indirect way rather than aggressive direct way, that means the two sides also commonly share the interests of the so called new height of bilateral relation.
But the main obstacle stemmed from the history is not easy to be solved.
So the way for the new height of the new relationship have to pass a pretty long time and pretty long course.
Dr. Yang, actually ahead of President Lee's trip to Japan, protests erupted in Seoul.
Many argue that the summit risks compromising historical justice and national sovereignty, especially as Japan continues to deny its wartime aggression and distorts history.
They claim that unless Japan confronts those issues honestly, there can be no future-oriented relationship between South Korea and Japan.
So, from the perspective of upholding historical truth and regional justice, how do you assess the rationality of these protests?
And what impact might Japan's attitude toward historical issues have on the sustainability of its relations not only with South Korea, but also with China?
I think the rationality on the Japanese history issue is not only such between people's sentiments and feelings and the way of thinking as well, but also reflects the general mindsets of people in Asia who suffered a lot from Japanese invasion during the war time.
The basic logic of the rationality is like the famous saying Those who fail to learn lessons from history are doomed to repeat it.
Given the background.
Firstly, Japanese authorities never, ever sincerely recognized the terrible history they did.
And secondly, with the wrong, totally wrong historical acknowledgment, Japan has started to rapidly increase their military capability, designed to rebuild their military powers, designed to revise militarily.
Also, multidimensional efforts have been made to revise the existing pacifist constitution and its related legal regulations domestically.
So, combined with all the factors, the concerns and the worries about the re-rising of Japanese military means, greater uncertainties and potential threats.
Therefore the tougher position of Japanese right-wing government's position on the historical acknowledgment say deny the invasion history, the greater concerns and the worries for the Asian people, including South Korean people, about the future's uncertainty and threats from the Japanese military re-rising.
Therefore, no matter the politicians in South Korea made how efforts try to improve relations with Japan, but the concerns and the worries from the public remain unchanged until Japan makes a substantive move to re-recognize the history correctly and take the substantive steps and actions showing they are still going along the pacifist way.
Only under such a scenario, I think concerns and worries can be removed and at least reduced.
Then the obstacle for the new relation not only between South Korea and Japan, but also new relations between Japan and China and other Asian countries, can be realistic.
Lastly, Dr Yang, during your talks, President Lee highlighted the importance of trilateral cooperation with China and he says South Korea aims to find as many common grounds as possible, communicating closely and cooperating together between China, South Korea and Japan.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Takeuchi emphasized strengthening the US-Japan-South Korea trilateral framework.
She also urged President Lee to help ensure regional stability.
What do you make of the signals sent by Takeuchi?
And also given Japan's recent negative remarks on China-related issues.
What harm do those provocative statements pose to regional stability?
I think Japanese leaders' remarks on Taiwan and the new remarks issued during the South Korea-Japan summit send a very bad signal and aggressive signal.
Firstly, her remarks shows insistence on the wrong position about Taiwan issue.
That means the China and the Japan relation, which has been at nearly ice point level, will remain.
And secondly, her remarks regarding China's export control is a really double standards mindset and measures is well known.
Several years ago japan has been following us policy direction, pushed a lot of export control on china.
But now china, according to international law and the rules, like many other Western countries have been done issued a new regulation of export control on dual use, both for civil and military use the goods, strengthening the control.
That's quite responsible not only for China's security, but also responsible for all related countries' security, including for Japan's security.
So China's justice action should be appreciated, should be supported.
So I think, on one hand, it's a long way to resume the trilateral cooperation, like President Li hopes and proposed.
But, on the other hand, the potential interests remain unchanged and the process of the trilateral cooperation that benefited not only for the three countries but also for the whole region as a whole, remain have opportunity.
I think as long as Japan change their wrong position, the wrong policy towards China, the win-win-win trilateral cooperation could be resumed as highly possible, based on Japanese right adjustment of their policy.
That was Yang Shiyu, Research Fellow at China Institute of International Studies, speaking with Xu Yawen.
You're listening to World Today.
Let's move to the Washington's coercive push in Greenland.
German Defense Minister, Boris Pistorius, has warned that any US attempt to control Greenland would be unprecedented in the history of NATO and defense alliances worldwide.
Pistorius made the remarks at a joint press conference in Berlin with EU Foreign and Security Policy Chief Kaya Kallas.
Callas confirmed that EU member states are discussing possible responses to the ambitions of US President Donald Trump, though details remain unclear.
Pistorius reaffirmed Germany's support for Denmark's territorial sovereignty, stressing that Greenland's security is a shared NATO responsibility.
Then facing a more coercive United States, what options do European countries really have?
Is NATO still relevant?
For this and more, let's have Dr Cui Hongjian, professor with the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University.
Professor, German Defense Minister has warned that any US move to control Greenland would be unprecedented in NATO's history.
From your perspective.
If we look at NATO's core principles like collective defense and respect for allies' sovereignty, how should we understand the nature of a US move like this?
Why is it seen as a challenge to NATO's very foundations?
Now it looks like the United States is trying to implement its so-called new national security strategy, especially with the principle of the United States should or will control the so-called western part of the earth especially, not only Venezuela, and also especially now this time for Greenland.
Also not only for European countries and maybe for the world as a whole have to deal with this very, very big change of this logic and also principles of American foreign policy and also security strategy.
Also, you know it's out of the interests of European countries and also out of the so-called common interests between Atlantic Ocean.
So I think at this beginning stage the European side could try to understand what's the real concern, what's the real purpose from the United States.
So I think it will take maybe longer time for the European side to be familiar with the new situation from the traditional alliance United States.
So it's not only a challenge of security.
I think it's just a showcase of the comprehensive and also structural challenge from the United States against European allies.
Does this suggest that US hegemonic behavior is now extending into alliance relations?
No longer care about its allies at all?
What risks does this pose to the traditional transatlantic partnership and NATO's existence?
Certainly, I think that, especially once the United States try to take use of military instrument to deal with this issue of Greenland, it will give, I think very, very big and also decisive impact on the future of relations between Europe and the United States.
Especially, as we know for a long time, US and Europe.
They do have a mechanism of security cooperation in the name of NATO.
So I think that's also the first response from the European side to remind the United States that they are still an alliance in the frame of NATO.
But so far I think that there will not be any substantial effect on the American side, especially from the Trump administration.
Because also in recent years, in the eyes of the United States, the value of NATO has been decreasing for a lot of degree.
So I don't think that it will be a major concern from the United States to take care of the failing or the interest from European countries.
You will find out some signals from the change of American attitude towards the Ukrainian crisis.
But of course I think from The European side is trying to make some efforts to give some more limitations or some difficulties to the Trump administration to implement its policy or strategy against Europe.
Professor, in practical terms, what options do countries like Germany or the EU more broadly have if the US is seen as overstepping?
Because the German defense minister stressed that Greenland's security It's a shared NATO responsibility and reaffirmed support for Denmark's sovereignty.
What could they do if U.S. take the next step?
Now American side put almost every chips on the table, including the political and foreign policy and economic and also military on the table.
So it looks like the European side is trying to find out its own comprehensive reactions, including political or military or economic.
But now, comparing with the United States, there are few useful instruments from the European side to deal with the issue, especially to deal with the problem.
I think now the major purpose of the European side is trying to stop the united states to take a use of a military instrument to deal with this issue.
So, as we understand, to manage any potential crisis or even confrontations between europe and the united states could be a major purpose.
Now i think a very pragmatic way from the european side is trying to transfer this current attention between two sides into a negotiation framework So we can find out yes, there will be some talks between US and Europe and especially from European side, it's trying to manage any potential crisis.
But unfortunately I think at the end perhaps European side have to have some more compromise with the United States.
But of course not use of the military, could be, I think, be defined by European side as a kind of a success.
Professor, U.S.
Vice President J.D.
Vance is hosting the Danish and Greenlandic foreign officials in Washington this week.
Do you expect anything substantive to come out of this meeting?
What do you think each side is really aiming to achieve?
So far, European and American sides, they do have a lot of divergences on the Greenland issue.
So I don't think that there will be any substantial progress. for the first talks between two sides.
But of course, as we understand that the European side always try its best to manage the crisis and they try to ask the American side to deal with the issue together with the European side in a negotiation framework.
So mostly, I think this first talk will be more symbolic for both sides to have this diplomatic touch, i think, exchange some stance and to find that the limitation of using of a military way could be a very, very important purpose for this first talk.
Like you said, many believe that greenland or europe may eventually have to compromise, perhaps by offering a minerals deal or allowing an expanded US security presence on the island.
But how realistic is that scenario?
And would such concessions actually be enough to satisfy Washington?
So far it looks like.
I think a more rational solution from the European side is to have some compromise with the United States and even for some exchange of interests.
As we understand now.
Firstly, European side need to understand what's a real purpose from the United States, especially from Trump himself.
And then I think the European side will try to find out a package of this exchange of interests with the United States.
I think there will be some, maybe several scenarios for this final solution between two sides.
One of them is, yes, they could not manage the crisis or tensions.
And they have to go to a more dangerous situation.
But I think it could be out of their interests and also out of the credibility of the European side.
So mostly to give some more economic and resources interests to the United States and to exchange American side will not challenge the political position of Greenland and to respect so-called sovereignty and also integration of a territory of Denmark.
And then yes, there will be some more security existence or military existence of the United States in the Greenland.
And, of course, perhaps the European side will do something more to cooperate with the United States, not only on Greenland and also in larger areas, including American strategic ambition in the Arctic region.
Thanks, Professor, for those insightful analysis.
That was Dr Cui Hongjian, Professor with the Academy of Regional and Global Governance at Beijing Foreign Studies University.
This is Road Today.
We'll be back.
You've been listening to Road Today.
China has installed the road's first 20-megawatt offshore wind turbine, marking a major milestone in renewable energy development.
The turbine can generate enough electricity to power around 44,000 homes each year.
A single unit can replace about 24000 tons of coal annually and cut carbon dioxide emissions by roughly 64000 tons.
So to delve into this, joining us on the line is Changhua Wu, president of the Global Climate Academy and chair of the governing council at the Asia-Pacific Water Forum.
Thanks for joining us.
Thank you for having me.
First of all, China has successfully installed this world's first 20 megawatt offshore wind turbine.
From your perspective, what are the key technological breakthroughs behind this milestone?
Well, there are quite a few number of breakthroughs there.
But let me first put some numbers to illustrate the spectrum and magnitude we're talking about here.
So one, the first number is really about the length of each blade.
It's about 147 meters long.
And if you look at the turbine hub, The height actually stands about 174 meters above sea level.
And if you look at the rotor diameter, it's about 300 meters, with a swept area comparable to nearly 10 football fields there.
What does that mean?
That means, in order to achieve the milestones, it's not just one or two technology innovations, but rather it is a systems level achievement.
Now, specifically, there are a few highlights actually to tell the details of the breakthroughs.
Firstly, is the ultra large rotor and blade engineering.
As I mentioned, the number at 147 meters per blade.
It requires rather complicated structural integrity, fatigue resistance, aerodynamic ability, among others there.
Now that also requires really advanced materials, blade root reinforcement, as well as digital modeling.
So we definitely have witnessed a major breakthrough there on this part.
Secondly, it's really the lightweight design at a scale.
The turbine reportedly reduces weight per megawatt by over 20% compared with the industrial average.
What does that mean?
That means actually, so we don't.
The cost for lay down foundation will be much lower and the risk for installation is much lower as well, as actually it doesn't require long-term maintenance there.
Now, on the third side, I think the offshore installation technology is also complicated.
For the weight.
Actually we had to lift the blades up further to about 180 meters actually above the sea level in deep water areas there.
That requires the fourth generation installation vessels to transport, as well as actually real-time positioning systems and intellectual controls during the pile driving and blade mating period.
And finally is the grid and the control integration.
Just imagining, yes, we installed such a powerful, you know, large-scale wind turbines.
It generated about, you know, 20 megawatt sort of unit size in terms of electricity output there.
That requires a lot of software capability to stabilize the voltage and the frequency.
Especially important, actually, is the grids absorb higher shares of variable renewables there.
At the end.
Actually, as I said yes, it's large turbines, but it's not just one or two technology breakthroughs.
Rather, it's an integrated ability to manufacture, to transport and lift, as well as integrate them really reliably offshore together in order for the large turbines to generate clean energy.
That's indeed very impressive.
Then looking at China's long-term dual carbon goals, how does this kind of leap in renewable capacity help support low carbon transitions on both the energy production and consumption sides?
Why is it so significant for turning those goals into reality for China?
Well, China's dual carbon objectives is literally peaking emissions before 2030 and reaching carbon neutrality before 2060.
Put that in the China context, particularly in the clean energy transition perspective.
That requires speed and skill.
And the successful installation of the 20 megawatt large-scale wind turbines really tells something.
China is pursuing the speed and the skill that's required actually to accelerate such a transition.
On the production side, as witnessed already, the ultra-large offshore wind turbine definitely accelerates replacement of coal by delivering large volume of zero-carbon electricity with fewer installations there.
And definitely, that's really, really helpful.
On the consumption side, of course, with more abundant, actually clean electricity that means China's electrification process will become much clearer, cleaner and that can support and supply power to transport system, to industrial heat, to hydrogen production, increasingly actually data and computing infrastructure there as well.
But at the end of the day, as we're talking about here large offshore wind turbine or farms, As a keystone technology, it helps convert long-term climate goals from policy statement into engineering realities.
But in the meantime, it definitely has required much, much more sophisticated and much more investment in RD capability in order to turn those technology capability into reality.
Let's shift gears to the global picture.
Right now, we know the United States is still relying heavily on political and even military means to secure oil resources worldwide, while China is accelerating its path into renewables.
What do these two very different energy paths tell us about their contrasting development philosophies?
Well unfortunately, what we are witnessing now is the world's two largest countries are pursuing totally different clean energy transition pathways there.
This reflects at a deeper level the different political assumptions actually about energy scarcity and security.
As we all know, fossil fuels actually model.
Fossil fuels are regarded as a finite resources that must be protected and controlled, very often actually through the geopolitical influence there.
And that's pretty much has shaped much of the 20th century.
If you look at the energy politics actually, the risk, the rivalry, the confrontations, you name it.
But renewable model treats energy as infrastructure and technology where the security comes from domestic capacity, diversified supply and continuous innovation, rather than territorial control.
So we are taking two totally different sort of approaches there.
It also reflects the geography, history and the institutions.
But renewables fundamentally alter the equation because the sun and the wind are widely distributed.
They don't really send a bill on a regular basis.
And the control shifts from resources access to manufacturing grids and the systems integration.
That is why China has made a very strong case globally that by really investing in manufacturing capability, industrial capability, supply chain engineering capability and the industrial ecosystems there, we could literally shift the geopolitical energy security narrative actually towards more sustainable, clean energy future.
And that's totally different in sharp contrast actually to the fossil fuel narrative there.
One minute ago.
Just briefly, Elon Musk has argued that the real currency of the future will be wattage.
As the global AI race intensifies, could grain-cheap and stable electricity eventually replace oil?
Yes, that seems to be the case.
We are living in it at this moment.
We often say, you know, at the end of the road of AI is really electricity, which is the wattage there.
And today, if you look at the AI system, AI growth, actually, it proves very energy intensive.
So what kind of energy we are going to supply, generate actually to supply meet that sort of needs is a critical question.
And ideally, we could somehow generate reliable, low cost, continuous electricity, but also clean.
And China is definitely on that path.
But unfortunately the US is on another path towards fossil fuels, which is polluting and causing climate change.
Thanks, Changhua Wu, president of the Global Climate Academy.
That's all the time for this edition of Road Today.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
